All is relative. Not everybody will shed any tears of sorrow if this mirror-less nonsense goes away

Mirror-less IS inferior technology. I've tried it! (and regreted it)

No mirror to protect the sensor when changing lenses is an open invitation to dust and ruined pictures (and that's what users of these cameras WILL get)

Mirror-less is not something anybody who is serious about their photography will ever choose.Don't fall for the media-hype that mirror-less (WITH interchangeable lenses) is the future. Mirror-less belongs ONLY in cameras with ONE SINGLE FIXED lens!

Perhaps also it might be due to Americans liking the "go big or go home" approach.

Not meaning big in size, but we like things that truly excel in some category - and also bring a good value to the table.

Here is where mirrorless fails entirely, given the above statements:

- Is mirrorless the best in quality? Nope, DSLR is.- Is mirrorless the most compact? Nope, a smartphone camera is.- Is mirrorless the best standalone camera value? Nope, a point & shoot is.

So where does mirrorless fit in? Where does it truly excel above all? The problem is, it does not. It is through-and-through a compromise camera. It compromises quality for portability, but still is less portable and more expensive than many other options available. Hence the USA fail.

If by "quality" you mean "image quality", your answer to your first question is false: the new FF Sonys are at least as good as FF dslrs in image quality, the same is true of APS-C mirrorless cameras and their dslr equivalents (fans of the Fuji x cameras tend to think they're better, especially in terms of noise), while the gap between M43 and APS-C has become negligible. What's more, the technology of mirrorless cameras, in the better ones, makes it easier to take good photos with both AF and manual lenses.

Image quality has a lot more to do than just with the sensor quality. You don't just magically have an image appear on the sensor, you have to get it there first. And, even the FF Sonys are again a compromise in this area. The EVF is a compromise, the AF system is a compromise, the body is too small to comfortably support larger fast zoom glass - making the only comfortable zoom lenses to use once again smaller compromise lenses. Most of the native glass available is a compromise and those using an adapter for superior Canon glass have to use an adapter that slows autofocus to 2 seconds - another compromise, not to mention the potential IQ loss from the adapter itself.

So, while the sensor on the FF Sonys is not a compromise, virtually every other area of the camera required to get the image is. Hence, the overall image quality *is* compromised.

For me, the core of the issue is exactly that....compromise. Across the board in their current iterations, there are compromises to be made when using a mirrorless body. I have no doubt that the possibilities are endless and the potential is great. There are plenty of innovative things that have been packed into these cameras. But the facts remain regarding the compromises. That is the reason many of us would consider buying one or have already bought one....but still have our "other" main rig.

I disagree with almost all of this. The future of photography is higher end gear, cameras like those made by Fuji X, Sony NEX, A7, etc - not P&S or phones.

@ pharp - Bros., the future of photography may be higher end gear but what makes you think that Fuji X, Sony NEX, A7, etc. is so much high end versus P&S or cell phones?

@ everyone else.... Here is whats happening. The pro. won't even touch these guys with a 10 yard stick (not that I talk for all professionals), people everywhere else are using cell phones and P&S. Few people will look at these pros and will buy a DSLR - thinking that they can emulate a pro. and most will always start with a lower end model like a Rebel. And, depending on how much they will get into photography, most are happy as long as its better than a P&S or cell phone. Filter that and they will invest in FF. Filter that and you will see people talking about IQ... its a small playing field... it doesn't make it better that a MILC looks like a toy camera versus a probody.

Go ask your wife, brother, sister, parents.... friends that are not into photography... ask them about IQ and compare pictures and bodies.... they don't give a crap... they might even think you're nuts. Problem is... Canon and every other company is not just targeting you, but also your wife, brother, sister, parents and the people that are not into photography.

All is relative. Not everybody will shed any tears of sorrow if this mirror-less nonsense goes away

Mirror-less IS inferior technology. I've tried it! (and regreted it)

No mirror to protect the sensor when changing lenses is an open invitation to dust and ruined pictures (and that's what users of these cameras WILL get)

Mirror-less is not something anybody who is serious about their photography will ever choose.Don't fall for the media-hype that mirror-less (WITH interchangeable lenses) is the future. Mirror-less belongs ONLY in cameras with ONE SINGLE FIXED lens!

If you are obsessed with quality (DURABLE quality): do NOT get a mirror-less.

It's really that simple The only ones crying about mirror-less not selling are those who were stupid enough to buy stocks and shares in Sony.

I am sorry, but you seem to be one of the people who got his DSLR religion, and is not willing to look forward. Windows vs Apple, Windows vs OS/2 Windows vs Linux, iOS vs Android, Android vs Windows 8,.... so many "religious" wars, and yet folks continue to use most of the products.

There are MANY professionals who already dumped D800 5DIII and other "big boy" toys. The fact is that Fuji and Olympus and Sony are ahead of the game of looking towards the future.If you look at quality of fujifilm x-yyyy series, they produce amazing pictures. So do latest toys from Olympus and Sony. A7 and A7r is the v 1.o of the line, but so was iPhone way back.

I met plenty of parents who drag heavy DSLR with huge lenses to take pictures of their little ones. Dedicated cameras will NEVER go away, unless a new breakthrough product emerges just for this reason. I will try to sell my DSLRs to one of them, who doesn't know any better. :-)

Mirror-less cameras are light, provide great picture quality and improve in AF area. What else does one need.

I disagree with almost all of this. The future of photography is higher end gear, cameras like those made by Fuji X, Sony NEX, A7, etc - not P&S or phones.

@ pharp - Bros., the future of photography may be higher end gear but what makes you think that Fuji X, Sony NEX, A7, etc. is so much high end versus P&S or cell phones?

@ everyone else.... Here is whats happening. The pro. won't even touch these guys with a 10 yard stick (not that I talk for all professionals), people everywhere else are using cell phones and P&S. Few people will look at these pros and will buy a DSLR - thinking that they can emulate a pro. and most will always start with a lower end model like a Rebel. And, depending on how much they will get into photography, most are happy as long as its better than a P&S or cell phone. Filter that and they will invest in FF. Filter that and you will see people talking about IQ... its a small playing field... it doesn't make it better that a MILC looks like a toy camera versus a probody.

Go ask your wife, brother, sister, parents.... friends that are not into photography... ask them about IQ and compare pictures and bodies.... they don't give a crap... they might even think you're nuts. Problem is... Canon and every other company is not just targeting you, but also your wife, brother, sister, parents and the people that are not into photography.

Sony Rx10 is a fantastic video camera and professional WILL touch them the same way as they do GoPro action cameras. These products are cheap and good enough for many of their work.

I found another wedding photographer who dumped her Canon 5DIII for Olympus OMD-E5 and OMD-E1. For her pixel peeping is not important. Making money and not getting injured in the process by caring heavy camera, is the top priority.

As far as families and friends not giving crap.

Only family members that haven't seen any good pictures from any of their friends. However those who HAVE seen great pictures (like mine ...lol ) immediately ask one basic question "what camera should I buy?". They know that their iPhone or Android phone are NOT going to give them what they really want, since they already tried them. They've seem me switching from Canon 7D to Sony NEx-5n and the results where not worse, as they (and I) can tell. KNOWING the basics of photography is more important than what camera we have. Of course equipment does matter, but skills ARE the main ingredient of a good photo. Just saying.

I am sorry, but you seem to be one of the people who got his DSLR religion, and is not willing to look forward. Windows vs Apple, Windows vs OS/2 Windows vs Linux, iOS vs Android, Android vs Windows 8,.... so many "religious" wars, and yet folks continue to use most of the products.

There are MANY professionals who already dumped D800 5DIII and other "big boy" toys. The fact is that Fuji and Olympus and Sony are ahead of the game of looking towards the future.If you look at quality of fujifilm x-yyyy series, they produce amazing pictures. So do latest toys from Olympus and Sony. A7 and A7r is the v 1.o of the line, but so was iPhone way back.

I met plenty of parents who drag heavy DSLR with huge lenses to take pictures of their little ones. Dedicated cameras will NEVER go away, unless a new breakthrough product emerges just for this reason. I will try to sell my DSLRs to one of them, who doesn't know any better. :-)

Mirror-less cameras are light, provide great picture quality and improve in AF area. What else does one need.

Go ask your wife, brother, sister, parents.... friends that are not into photography... ask them about IQ and compare pictures and bodies.... they don't give a crap... they might even think you're nuts. Problem is... Canon and every other company is not just targeting you, but also your wife, brother, sister, parents and the people that are not into photography.

It depends on what culture you're from. Around the people I grew up with it's more just a cost/benefit equation. If you can start a good conversation about one thing being significantly better than another they'll probably buy it. I'm fairly certain you'll find an SLR in every household among my relatives, and many of my friends as well.If people didn't care about image quality I don't think this industry would be worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year.I'm still betting that once full frame sensors punch through the $1,000 barrier you'll see a significant boost in the amount of interest surrounding big cameras (regardless of viewfinder type).

No mirror to protect the sensor when changing lenses is an open invitation to dust and ruined pictures (and that's what users of these cameras WILL get)

FWIW the mirror doesn't protect the sensor against dust. The shutter on a DSLR however usually is closed when you change lenses, so that helps perhaps. Still, despite the shutter, dust that gets inside the camera can eventually find its way to the sensor. I wouldn't want to use the shutter as a protective screen anyway, because it is very delicate. Best be careful with lens changes no matter what:)

Simple truth: the OVF is a passive device that has tied camera progress for years. This has been supported by Canikon being the benchmark of photography and by their being uninterested in developing EVFs.

That said, the EVF is a dynamic, active device that gives plenty of advantages. Magnification, exposure preview, peaking, zebras, etc are only some of them. More than that, an EVF can be extensively developed and improved over time, OVFs not quite. OVFs are the past, EVFs are the future, and we are now in a transition zone.

If any of the nay-sayers in this thread had actually tried the EVF in the a7 or OMD, probably they would have a different opinion.

Simple truth: the OVF is a passive device that has tied camera progress for years. This has been supported by Canikon being the benchmark of photography and by their being uninterested in developing EVFs.

That said, the EVF is a dynamic, active device that gives plenty of advantages. Magnification, exposure preview, peaking, zebras, etc are only some of them. More than that, an EVF can be extensively developed and improved over time, OVFs not quite. OVFs are the past, EVFs are the future, and we are now in a transition zone.

If any of the nay-sayers in this thread had actually tried the EVF in the a7 or OMD, probably they would have a different opinion.

Yeah, now if they can only reduce the battery drain. EVFs can match OVFs but they are currently a lot more expensive than the OVFs. That problem will be solved as the technology is developed and matured. The power consumption is another issue. Battery technology is based on basic chemistry and there aren't any technologies that are better than Li-ion (cost, power capacity, etc.) and right now, people are not willing to give up the 700+ shots with a DSLR (OVF) for 200 shots with an EVF.

Yeah, now if they can only reduce the battery drain. ... The power consumption is another issue. Battery technology is based on basic chemistry and there aren't any technologies that are better than Li-ion (cost, power capacity, etc.) and right now, people are not willing to give up the 700+ shots with a DSLR (OVF) for 200 shots with an EVF.

The source of the battery-life problem is the misguided insistence that mirrorless cameras be small in size, which obviously dictates a small battery as well.

Logged

Happily ignoring the laws of physics and the rules of photography to create better pictures.

Yeah, now if they can only reduce the battery drain. ... The power consumption is another issue. Battery technology is based on basic chemistry and there aren't any technologies that are better than Li-ion (cost, power capacity, etc.) and right now, people are not willing to give up the 700+ shots with a DSLR (OVF) for 200 shots with an EVF.

The source of the battery-life problem is the misguided insistence that mirrorless cameras be small in size, which obviously dictates a small battery as well.

Even if the batteries were as large as that in the 5DIII, the number of shots per battery will still be much fewer. The EVF does not work without power. That is the nice thing about OVF. You can set up a lot of shots without using any power until you need to press the button. On a good day, I can get 800+ using PDAF. Using LV heavily, maybe 300, and if I had to use an EVF/LV for rough framing etc, it'd be even less.